You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement and Concomitant Mitral Regurgitation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fcvm.2018.00074 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Barbara E. Stähli, Markus Reinthaler, David M. Leistner, Ulf Landmesser, Alexander Lauten |
| Abstract |
Mitral regurgitation frequently coexists in patients with severe aortic stenosis. Patients with moderate to severe mitral regurgitation at the time of transcatheter aortic valve replacement are at increased risk of future adverse events. Whether concomitant mitral regurgitation is independently associated with worse outcomes after TAVR remains a matter of debate. The optimal therapeutic strategy in these patients-TAVR with evidence-based heart failure therapy, combined TAVR and transcatheter mitral valve intervention, or staged transcatheter therapies-is ill-defined, and guideline-based recommendations in patients at increased risk for open heart surgery are lacking. Hence, a thorough evaluation of the aortic and mitral valve anatomy and function, along with an in-depth assessment of the patients' baseline risk profile, provides the basis for an individualized treatment approach. The aim of this review is therefore to give an overview of the current literature on mitral regurgitation in TAVR, focusing on different diagnostic and therapeutic strategies and optimal clinical decision making. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 1 | 50% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 6 | 22% |
| Researcher | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Librarian | 1 | 4% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 11 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 41% |
| Engineering | 2 | 7% |
| Psychology | 1 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 12 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 June 2018.
All research outputs
#14,882,474
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
#2,122
of 7,008 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,040
of 328,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
#40
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,008 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,030 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.